When does a mystical state begin?

[Vouthon]

This thread is somewhat related to the thread on a different sub-forum called "What is mysticism?" although it is more finely pointed.

Where is the demarcation line between "ordinary consciousness", "spiritual consciousness", "supernatural consciousness" and "mystical consciousness"? When does a mystical state begin?

What does one have to experience or be aware of to pass beyond the veil of ordinary perception, spiritual perception or supernatural perception, into "mystical perception"? Or is ordinary perception, spiritual and supernatural consciousness seen by you as also being mystical?

I like this definition from Dom Cuthbert Butler's book, "Western Mysticism". He explains well the history of the controversy over what exactly is a mystical state in the Catholic Church:

"...MYSTICAL. Another term much controverted is the word 'mystical' . One school of mystical theologians limits its use strictly to contemplation that is fully passive this is the position of Poulain and Farges; another school, to which belong de Besse and Saudreau, extend it so as to include the prayer of loving attention or of simplicity. On this question excellent words have been written in a recent book, Darkness or Light, by Fr Henry Browne, S,J. } to which we shall revert more than once. He sets up a psychological rather than a theological test for 'mystical'. The natural, normal, mode of operation of the mind during its present state of union with the body, is by sense impressions, images, concepts, 'intelligible species', reasoning; when it operates in another mode, without these means it is acting mystically. Fr Browne says:​

In theory it is necessary, unless we want to be lost in hopeless confusion, to state firmly that, as soon as one ceases to use discourse of the faculties, so soon one's prayer begins to be passive and one is really entering on the mystic road' (op, cit. p. 138). This seems to afford a true and easily applicable discriminant delimiting the frontier between mystical and non-mystical prayer.​

ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY. These terms again give rise to much controversy. We have heard Bishop Hedley make a synthesis, almost a paradox: contemplation is extraordinary prayer, but it ought to be an ordinary state for Christian souls. Some writers use 'ordinary' as meaning usual; among them de Besse: his chapter xiii. is entitled 'The prayer of faith [loving attention] a common grace.​

He says:

The grace of contemplation is granted with truly divine generosity to souls who devote themselves generously to prayer. It is not a miraculous gift; it is not an indication of a perfect life; it is a means of raising the soul to sanctity. Nearly all generous souls who remain faithful to prayer receive, sooner or later, the grace of obscure contemplation [i.e. prayer of faith]. As soon as these souls have acquired the power of discerning and corresponding with this grace they can practise at will the prayer of faith, which is an ordinary mystic prayer..."

- Dom Cuthbert Butler OSB, Western Mysticism (published 1922) ​

What are your thoughts on the above "psychological" definition of mystical consciousness?

 

[crossfire]

What does to experience or be aware of to pass beyond the veil of ordinary perception, spiritual perception and supernatural perception, into "mystical perception"?

I think there is a construction fallacy here: ordinary perception is not the veil to be passed through. Mystical perception is already there. You just need to become mindful of it, imo.

 

[Vouthon]

I think there is a construction fallacy here: ordinary perception is not the veil to be passed through. Mystical perception is already there. You just need to become mindful of it, imo.

Thank you Crossfire! Very interesting point of notice :bow:

I agree that the capacity to have mystical perception is already present, in everyone, yet is not ordinary consciousness and thought processes (ie through sense impressions, concepts, mental images, thoughts, reason and the ordinary consciousness) distinct from that deeper level of awareness that receives no or little sense input from the outside? Could there not be a kind of (metaphorically speaking) "check-point" where one leaves the one and enters into the other?

I think that religions do recognise an innate mystical perception, through concepts such as Buddha-Nature (Mahayana Buddhism), Luminous Mind (Therevada), Atman (Hinduism), The Image of God (Judaism) and The Kingdom of God Within (Christianity). Yet in awakening this dormant reality does one not need to pass beyond or transcend one's ordinary mode of awareness through the senses?

 

[crossfire]

Thank you Crossfire! Very interesting point of notice :bow:

I agree that the capacity to have mystical perception is already present, in everyone, yet is not ordinary consciousness and thought processes (ie through sense impressions, concepts, mental images, thoughts, reason and the ordinary consciousness) distinct from that deeper level of awareness that receives no or little sense input from the outside? Could there not been a kind of (metaphorically speaking) "check-point" where one leaves the one and enters into the other?

I think that religions do recognise an innate mystical perception, through concepts such as Buddha-Nature (Mahayana Buddhism), Luminous Mind (Therevada), Atman (Hinduism), The Image of God (Judaism) and The Kingdom of God Within (Christianity). Yet in awakening this dormant reality does one not need to pass beyond or transcend one's ordinary mode of awareness through the senses?

Actually, no. When you are walking, know that you are walking. When you are eating, know that you are eating. When you are filled with mindfulness, you are also filled with the holy spirit.
See this sutta: Kayagata-sati Sutta: Mindfulness Immersed in the Body
exerpt: the beginning of mindfulness training:

"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.
"Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.
"Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.​

The mind then continues to develop from there.

 

[Vouthon]

Actually, no. When you are walking, know that you are walking. When you are eating, know that you are eating. When you are filled with mindfulness, you are also filled with the holy spirit.
See this sutta:

"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

"Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.
"Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.
​

The mind then continues to develop from there.

Again thank you! :bow:

Yet what you have described is not ordinary perception IMHO. It is an extraordinary awareness of ordinary events that many people do not have without the practice of mindfulness.

In ordinary awareness one thinks about what one is doing. In mindfulness one knows as you say ie

We should emphasize that mindfulness of the body, thoughts, feelings, sense-impressions, and so on does not mean thinking about those things, but merely knowing them with bare attention as soon as they arise (i.e., at the moment of contact), then letting them go. The technique of simply knowing and letting go of sensations without reacting to them eventually purifies the mind of all unwholesome traits.

What is Vipassana?

This is the cultivation of an awareness that is not ordinary because our ordinary mode of perception is to chatter, obsess and think:

"...After seasons of practice, the fruit is the stillness, inner focus, and recollection of that dimension of human awareness that thinks, chatters, obsesses, and swarms like a plague of gnats..."

- - Fr Martin Laird, modern Catholic contemplative writer & priest

In my tradition, there is also a recognition that mystical awareness leads to the consciousness of ordinary activities being penetrated with the divine presence.

Mindfulness in Christianity is known as watchfulness:

"...If there is any monk who wishes to take the measure of some of the more fierce passions so as to gain experience in his monastic art, then let him keep careful watch over his thoughts. Let him observe their intensity, their periods of decline and follow them as they rise and fall. Let him note well the complexity of his thoughts, their periodicity, with the order of their succession and the nature of their associations. Then let him ask from Christ the explanations of these data he has observed..."

— Abba Evagrius Ponticus(345-399 AD), Catholic mystic & monk, The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer

Read:

Vipassana practice cultivates mindfulness. Mindfulness in insight meditation refers to bare awareness of the physical and mental phenomena occurring in the present moment. These phenomena include the movements of your body, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations of touch, pain or pleasant feeling, thoughts, etc.

In Christianity this is known as the sacrament of the present moment. It is a key facet of developing mystical cognition:

"Morning, afternoon, evening- the hours of the day, of any day, of your day and my day. The alphabet of grace. If there is a God who speaks everywhere, surely he speaks here: through waking up and working, through going away and coming back again, through people you meet and books you read, through falling asleep in the dark" - Frederick Buechner

"...The present moment is like an ambassador who declares the Will of God...To hallow the Name of God is to love Him, to adore Him, and to recognise his holiness in all things. Let us learn to recognise the imprint of the Will of God, of his Worthy Name in the event of each moment. To discover God in the smallest and most ordinary of things, as well as in the greatest, is to possess a rare and sublime gift..."

- Jean-Pierre de Caussade (1675 - 1751), French Jesuit priest and Catholic mystic (p45 The Joy of Full Surrender)

In Buddhism after becoming mindful of the body and feelings, one becomes mindful of mental states: Mental Contents, Hindrances, Aggregates, Sense-Bases. This is what Abba Evagrius describes above.

Nevertheless my contention was that when one has did this practice of watchfulness or mindfulness one reaches what the Buddha calls "insight":

The Buddha is said to have identified two paramount mental qualities that arise from wholesome meditative practice:

• "serenity" or "tranquillity" (Pali: samatha) which steadies, composes, unifies and concentrates the mind;
• "insight" (Pali: vipassana) which enables one to see, explore and discern "formations

It is this stage that I consider to "mystical" in the proper sense, when we have through practice and the grace of God, stilled that mode of consciousness which chatters and thinks through rational processes.

We then become aware of something deeper:

"...Saint Augustine speaks of a higher part of the mind reserved for the contemplation of God and a lower part of the mind that reasons. Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century monk, is one of a host of contemplative writers to make an important distinction between the calculating, reasoning mind that makes use of concepts in a process we call ratiocination or discursive thought, and that dimension of mind that comes to knowledge directly, without the mediation of concepts. This he later called nous, an intuitive spiritual intelligence. And so when he defines prayer as 'communion of the mind with God,' he means a dimension of our conciousness that runs deeper than the discursive process of ratiocination...Saint Thomas Aquinas takes up this same distinction and can be said to speak for virtually the entire tradition when he calls this aspect of mind that thinks and calculates 'lower reason' (ratio inferior) and that aspect of the mind that communes directly with God in contemplation 'higher reason' (ratio superior) . Standing on the shoulders of everyone, Date states it most succinctly in The Divine Comedy, 'Reason, even when supported by the senses, has short wings'..."

- Fr Martin Laird, modern Catholic contemplative writer & priest

One can only become aware of this deeper consciousness through mindfulness/watchfulness, yet it is this level that I regard as being "mystical" in the true sense.

Francis Story, a Buddhist scholars notes:

Vipassana bhavana is realization of the three signs of being, anicca, dukkha, and anatta, by direct insight. These three characteristics, impermanence, suffering and non-self, can be grasped intellectually, as scientific and philosophical truth, but this is not in itself sufficient to rid the mind of egoism and craving. The final objective lies on a higher level of awareness, the direct "intuitional" plane, where it is actually experienced as psychological fact. Until this personal confirmation is obtained, the sphere of sense perception (ayatana) and sensory-responses remain stronger than the intellectual conviction

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/story/bl015.html

Can you see what both Martin Laird and Story are saying about this " intuitive spiritual intelligence" (Christianity)/"intuitional" plane" (Buddhism) on a "higher level of awareness" beyond discursive thought and meditation?

It is this which my tradition recognises as the "mystical stage" of the spiritual life. The prior parts are the preparation for mystical consciousness. Just as the tree is hidden in the seed, mystical awareness is hidden in this phase of the spiritual life, yet it is not the "flowering" of it IMHO in the true sense.

I am fascinated by how others see it differently

 

[Sunstone]

A mystical event begins when there is an abrupt end to subject/object perception while in some sense experiencing yet continues.

 

[Vouthon]

A mystical event begins when there is an abrupt end to subject/object perception while in some sense experiencing yet continues.

Great & succinct description, I agree. A noted authority on Advaita Vedanta, Prof. T. M. P. Mahadevan, describes this very well IMHO:

“...The knowledge of the self that is said to liberate the soul from bondage is direct knowledge, which is like perceptual knowledge. Only, even perceptual knowledge is not so immediate as self-knowledge. In sense-perception there is the intervention of a sense-organ between subject and object...”

 

[crossfire]

A mystical event begins when there is an abrupt end to subject/object perception while in some sense experiencing yet continues.

You can easily do this when your beliefs and attitudes do not distort your view of reality--beliefs and attitudes are in sync with objects and events.

 

[DreadFish]

I think it's all just a matter of gradually and continually allowing your consciousness to settle into it's natural state, no longer feeding conditioned perceptions until they burn the rest of their fuel and dissipate. Then the screen on which the various images are projected is intuited.

 

[Vouthon]

I think it's all just a matter of gradually and continually allowing your consciousness to settle into it's natural state, no longer feeding conditioned perceptions until they burn the rest of their fuel and dissipate. Then the screen on which the various images are projected is intuited.

Great post. It breathes of insight. :yes:

I like how you describe the mind as a screen, upon which the various images are played. In its natural state of simplicity, the mind is free from conditioned perceptions, images, distracting thoughts and concepts of reality like a clear image. The goal then is to simple "let go" and allow the mind to ease back into its primal state of simplicity. And there we have intuitive knowing.

I once read someone, a monk from my own tradition, describe it in terms of a lake: the various conditioned thoughts and emotions still swirl like ripples on the surface, yet at the bottom there is stillness. The ripples have no impact upon the still "core" ie

"...I am not who I think I am, and 'You' are not who you think 'You' are. What we call 'I' and 'You' is indeed a projection, and if we go far enough in withdrawing the projections and in piercing the veils, we shall reach a point at which there is no longer any 'I' or 'You'. We shall reach a point at which we realize that our true self has nothing to do with 'function'...a lawyer, a chimney-sweep, a doctor, a dustman, a priest...These are only functions, things we do; they are not us...These roles and functions are real projections...they give us a sense of security, a sense of identity and belonging. They prevent us from glimpsing the awful void and emptiness within ourselves: they make us feel solid, needed, valued and permanent...But it is not only our external, social personalities that are a tissue of projections and illusions. The same is true of much of our inner, private world, which we may well be tempted to regard as our 'self'...We are not our social functions or roles; but neither are we our private thoughts or emotions...If we watch our emotions and thoughts long enough, we may eventually become aware of something which is not not these emotions or thoughts...There is something within me which is at all times perfectly detached, tranquil and serene. It is never excited about anything, never downcast or depressed by anything. It is like a deep, perhaps, bottomless lake; my various thoughts and emotions are like ripples or waves upon the surface. But below the surface, in the depths, there are no ripples; everything is still...We are a different 'self' depending on the moods or activities of the moment...There is nothing to give any unity or continiuity to my identity...I am not one self but a sequence of different or even conflicting selves...We are not real, unified 'selves', we are not capable of true action, until we learn to enter the Ground...It transcends place and time. Anyone who enters the Ground no longer cares about the past or the future: he is aware only of the present moment, and the present moment is shot through with Divine Light, because it is in the present, and in the present alone, that the world of time touches the world of eternity. Standing within this impregnable citadel, we are troubled neither by the thought of our past experiences nor of possible troubles and preoccupations still to come..."

- Cyrprian Smith OSB, Catholic theologian and mystic

 

[DreadFish]

Great post. It breathes of insight. :yes:

I like how you describe the mind as a screen, upon which the various images are played. In its natural state of simplicity, the mind is free from conditioned perceptions, images, distracting thoughts and concepts of reality like a clear image. The goal then is to simple "let go" and allow the mind to ease back into its primal state of simplicity. And there we have intuitive knowing.

I once read someone, a monk from my own tradition, describe it in terms of a lake: the various conditioned thoughts and emotions still swirl like ripples on the surface, yet at the bottom there is stillness. The ripples have no impact upon the still "core" ie

Yeah, I like that description. It also makes me happy to know that there is that kind of wisdom somewhere in Christianity.

I think that lake metaphor is great because the conscious part of our mind is a lot like an iceberg. It amazes me how really tiny and shallow the conscious part of the mind is while there are depths below it that we are not even aware of and yet, while our conscious mind doesn't seem to effect them, those deep parts effect our daily lives without us even realizing that they exist. I think it's easy to mistake the deeper parts of our own awareness as something other than our own mind.

It's weird, I feel like its somehow and almost contradictorily like "Im not me", "me isn't me" if that makes any sense.

 

[DreadFish]

Oh, and this:

We shall reach a point at which we realize that our true self has nothing to do with 'function'...a lawyer, a chimney-sweep, a doctor, a dustman, a priest...These are only functions, things we do; they are not us...These roles and functions are real projections...they give us a sense of security, a sense of identity and belonging.

This makes me think of what YmirGF says about "action personified". We have our ideas about who we are and who others are (which seem to be two sides of one coin because we can't identify as any type of person if there aren't other types of person to be different from, opposed to, or like), and they are just mental pictures for the sake of security. I think of myself as a certain type of person because it makes me feel good to be this type of person while feeling like that type of person makes me feel bad or wrong. Recently I really saw how that is just a projection and doesn't have any substance to it and I seemed to realize that we aren't any thing, rather, we just do things.

All day, I am not a certain type of person at all, yet, I walk, eat, breathe, think, laugh lay down and sleep; and through all this, I never am anything, I just do these things, yet "I" am still just a mental picture used as a reference point for the sake of functioning in a world of multiplicity.

EDIT: so I guess that's what Dogen Zenji means in Genjokoan when he says:

"To carry yourself forward and experience the myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening."

"I" is just another of the myriad things.

 

[Vouthon]

Yeah, I like that description. It also makes me happy to know that there is that kind of wisdom somewhere in Christianity.

I think that lake metaphor is great because the conscious part of our mind is a lot like an iceberg. It amazes me how really tiny and shallow the conscious part of the mind is while there are depths below it that we are not even aware of and yet, while our conscious mind doesn't seem to effect them, those deep parts effect our daily lives without us even realizing that they exist. I think it's easy to mistake the deeper parts of our own awareness as something other than our own mind.

It's weird, I feel like its somehow and almost contradictorily like "Im not me", "me isn't me" if that makes any sense.

I admire your "take" on things my friend :bow:

It does make sense. I have read about such states of awareness in my own tradition and what you describe matches it perfectly ie ones where the person is not cognizant of their I and feels as if they are not themselves.

Catherine of Genoa, who I quoted on two other threads today, is an example:

"... This 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything...I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it...Everything to do with self passes away. It [the subconscious?] neither sees, speaks, nor knows loss or pain of its own..."

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)

I think its a case of being aware that what we normally think of as a solid, consistent self is actually an aggregate of various, more ephemeral factors and is conditioned rather than static. At the deepest level of consciousness, we find that these things are not self. We find a certain somewhere within us that is neither this nor that and cannot really be understood rationally, where these aggregates that make up the illusion of our everyday self become like ripples that we are aware of but which have no impact upon this still, inner region of our awareness. This part of our mind does not use discursive thought but is concerned only with intuitive knowledge not influenced by sense perceptions. It requires us to become observant of the story going on in our heads, the myth we tell about our selves for self-assurance, such as, "I am such and such and I deserve such-and such" or "I need" this, or "I want" etc. This is all empty, in reality. I think that this is pure consciousness, unmixed or tainted with conditioned thinking and emotional responses. I don't think that one can properly understand what "it" is. It is enough to know that this sub-consciousness is there.

 

[Open_Minded]

Where is the demarcation line between "ordinary consciousness", "spiritual consciousness", "supernatural consciousness" and "mystical consciousness"? When does a mystical state begin?

What does one have to experience or be aware of to pass beyond the veil of ordinary perception, spiritual perception or supernatural perception, into "mystical perception"? Or is ordinary perception, spiritual and supernatural consciousness seen by you as also being mystical?

Vouthon - like many things in life, your question has many answers. And like many things in life the answer depends on the person and where they are at in their journey.

The first mystical experience I have any memory of was when I was 5 years old and walking to school. I got caught up in a tree, as it were. For some reason I've always had an affinity for trees, but on this occasion the tree and I became one. I could not walk away from it until the experience passed, making me frightenly late for kindergarten (for a 5-year old anyway). The experience was quite spontaneous and to me (at the time) there was no demarcation between all the different forms of consciousness you listed. In fact to me the experience was unitive. The tree and I were one, all forms of consciousness were united and one, there was no me, no tree, no distinct form of consciousness. And I questioned nothing of the experience, I was a child. To me the experience was what it was - without analysis. The only analysis on my part was that I was late for school and at 5 years old, being late frightened me.

As I grew older I began to analyze my experiences in great detail. And that is when all these different forms of consciousness that you've mentioned started to come into play. From my perspective, anyway, going through a period of analysis about ones experiences has value. It helps us grow. We learn to be intentional on what we cultivate in our minds and actions. But ... when one continues on through the different forms of analysis one returns to the 5-year old who no longer needs to analyze. One returns to what Crossfire says:

I think there is a construction fallacy here: ordinary perception is not the veil to be passed through. Mystical perception is already there. You just need to become mindful of it, imo.

For my own part - the most intense experience I ever had included analysis. I had no idea what I was experiencing and needed a period of research and analysis. But... then came the letting go. Then came the acceptance of a 5-year old. Then came the ordinary perception.

On a purely analytical level, I am convinced the most intense experience I ever had "reset" the wiring in my brain and gave me awareness of another dimension. A dimension of oneness, no relativity, etc... This dimension is quite like the dimensions of time and space. I am capable of experiencing this dimension of no relativity at the same time as I experience the dimensions of time and space and relativity within time and space. There is solid reason for me to assess my experience as a rewiring of my brain, see this article.

At any rate, now I am more inline with Crossfire's approach:

Mystical perception is already there. You just need to become mindful of it, imo.

To me it's just like space and time. When I am mindful of space and time then I am more aware of it. When I am mindful of this new, added dimension, of no relativity, then I am more aware of it. There is no real demarcation, in fact demarcation is a false boundary, one which needs to be released. Without releasing the false boundaries, it is not possible to have a unitive experience.

 

[Me Myself]

A mystical state has no begining nor end.

 

[Vouthon]

A mystical state has no begining nor end.

You are actually correct :angel2: Given that it is to do with an experience of eternity, technically speaking from the individual experiencing it, there is no before or after:

"...Eternity is life that is beyond time but includes within itself all time but without a before or after. And whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no 'before or after'. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago...Now these people who are taken within, because of their boundless immanent oneness with God, see themselves as always and eternally existing..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest (The Little Book of Truth). p320

As I said to you on another thread: another short, succinct & astute point!

 

[DreadFish]

I admire your "take" on things my friend :bow:

It does make sense. I have read about such states of awareness in my own tradition and what you describe matches it perfectly ie ones where the person is not cognizant of their I and feels as if they are not themselves.

Catherine of Genoa, who I quoted on two other threads today, is an example:




I think its a case of being aware that what we normally think of as a solid, consistent self is actually an aggregate of various, more ephemeral factors and is conditioned rather than static. At the deepest level of consciousness, we find that these things are not self. We find a certain somewhere within us that is neither this nor that and cannot really be understood rationally, where these aggregates that make up the illusion of our everyday self become like ripples that we are aware of but which have no impact upon this still, inner region of our awareness. This part of our mind does not use discursive thought but is concerned only with intuitive knowledge not influenced by sense perceptions. It requires us to become observant of the story going on in our heads, the myth we tell about our selves for self-assurance, such as, "I am such and such and I deserve such-and such" or "I need" this, or "I want" etc. This is all empty, in reality. I think that this is pure consciousness, unmixed or tainted with conditioned thinking and emotional responses. I don't think that one can properly understand what "it" is. It is enough to know that this sub-consciousness is there.

I agree. I think we are on the same page.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hmm... There are strange happenings afoot in the cosmic energies...

 

[Vouthon]

Hmm... There are strange happenings afoot in the cosmic energies...

How so?

 

[Straw Dog]

How so?

I don't know. I'm just being deliberately mysterious.